Courtroom Accidents: Insurance Coverage Edition

Over the course of more than 30 years, I’ve witnessed some “interesting” observations from the bench, including the following:  

“’Self-insured retention’ is another name for a deductible.”

“An exception to an exclusion – why that’s entirely circular!”

“I’m a J.D., not a Ph.D.” (After having been briefed on formulae for allocating coverage for environmental claims)

“How many aggregate limits in the Policy apply to this claim?”

“Didn’t the appraisers decide the coverage issues?”

Now, judges are “generalists,” which may excuse such misapprehensions; moreover, obvious misunderstandings, when material to a ruling, usually are rectified on appeal though the lost time and money of recovering from a "train wreck" at the trial level aren't recoverable.  In litigation the parties assume the risk of added expense inherent in leaving decision-making to a generalist.

In contrast, a specialist arbitrator saves the parties considerable time and expense in terms of (i) streamlining discovery; (ii) minimizing time spent briefing coverage issues; and (iii) eliminating the time and expense of appeals, protecting against your case veering off track.